Do you want to speed up development in your company’s timeline? Why are smaller teams better than larger teams?
In The Age of Agile, Stephen Denning argues that companies can continuously innovate their products and services by organizing their workers into small, self-managing, multi-disciplinary teams. These teams work at their own pace and have the authority to make decisions on their own, rather than higher-ups approving things for them.
Keep reading to learn more about the benefits of agile team management.
Small, Self-Managing, Multi-Disciplinary Teams
These small groups are organized around a single project—such as solving a problem with their current product or developing a new feature—and are granted wide latitude in selecting their methods for achieving these goals. How far that discretion extends will vary from company to company, but in general, the goal is for the team to move quickly without waiting for their decisions to be approved.
(Shortform note: While Denning focuses on the advantages of agile management, our commentary throughout this section will highlight some potential drawbacks. For starters, some business experts caution that transferring from one management style to another can take a lot of effort. Furthermore, agile management’s emphasis on speed can result in a lack of documentation, which results in fewer records of company work. This can lead to a lack of transparency and make it difficult to track progress.)
Denning lists four benefits of agile team management: smaller tasks, faster development cycles, more independence, and more suggestions and ideas.
1) Smaller Tasks
Denning’s approach allows firms to break down large, complicated problems into smaller, more manageable tasks. Developers can thus test out targeted solutions without being encumbered by the complexity of working on the entire product at once.
(Shortform note: Breaking tasks down into smaller chunks can sometimes result in poorer coordination. If teams begin working in different directions, they may produce components that aren’t compatible with each other. They may also experience project delays if dependent steps are ready at different times.)
2) Faster Development Cycles
Focusing on a smaller task allows teams to move more quickly through the iterative cycle of development, accelerating their research. By working in short cycles and focusing on small, incremental improvements, these teams can constantly generate value for customers.
(Shortform note: While faster development cycles can improve research velocity, they may also make it more difficult to plan ahead for the long term. Because each research cycle may have different goals and problems, it will be harder to allocate resources in advance, possibly resulting in projects that are over- or under-resourced for their goals.)
3) More Independence
By working autonomously with little need for verification and approval, these teams can adapt more quickly to new information and customer feedback. Denning argues that traditional top-down management slows teams down by requiring decisions to be ratified and verified from on-high.
(Shortform note: Increased independence for teams can also result in scope creep, a problem where projects drift beyond their original purpose or mandate. This can cause projects to run over budget and behind time. It can also lower quality: When teams try to add too many new features, they run the risk of spreading themselves thin and executing the core project poorly. Scope creep can happen any time teams aren’t held accountable to staying within the boundaries of their project.)
4) More Suggestions and Ideas
By eliminating the need for top-down planning, teams are free to leverage innovative ideas from all levels of the organization. When ordinary workers can make suggestions and offer their perspectives, this creates a wider pool of ideas for future innovation.
(Shortform note: While including more people in the conversation can bring in fresh perspectives, the collaborative nature of agile management also requires a lot more time spent in meetings and discussions. If these conversations aren’t productive, this could end up wasting workers’ time.)
